One reader thinks the NHL should implement the yellow-card rule. Denis Doyle/Getty Images

Last week I opined that the NHL can give itself a facelift by adopting the Olympic game. Most of the readers I heard from agreed that the wider rink is a ducky approach to fixing the shortage of skating room, flow, excitement and scoring  -- although Andrew Stead of Kingston, Ontario, warned, "If you put a finger-painting in the Louvre, it's not going to magically turn into a masterpiece."

"I'm not sure Olympic size ice will do the trick," wrote Steve Bain of Georgetown, Ontario. "It's easier to play keep-away with the puck and tougher to hit each other. I'm definitely in your corner regarding change not necessarily being a good thing. Find out what your customers want. If the NHL doesn't, things are not going to improve."

The overwhelming consensus: consistently calling penalties (more power plays = more goals), banning oversized goalie equipment, and pruning deadwood teams is a better remedy than carnival arcade gimmicks like bigger nets and shootouts. Here are more suggestions from customers. Hopefully, the grand viziers at NHL HQ will lend us their cauliflower ears:

Brad Worthington, Toronto: "Swedish Elite teams fill the neutral zone as NHLers do. I like the tag-up offside rule, getting rid of one referee and taking away the red line to allow the two line pass."

Alain Tanguay, Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec: "The 'left-wing lock' system (the 'trap' ancestor) was invented by the Czechs to beat the Soviets on Olympic surfaces. The rule change that could bring more scoring is to let penalties run regardless if the man-advantaged team scores one, two, three or more goals in the two-minutes."

William Sleeman, Vancouver: "Borrow from basketball: three penalties in a game and you foul out. Or soccer: the first penalty is a yellow card, the next means you're gone."

Pat Fogg, Calgary: "Go 5-on-5 for the entire game, as they do for overtime. It would give a lot more room for skilled players to operate, and reduce payrolls because owners would need fewer players."

Adrian Evans, Cedar Rapids, Iowa: "There should be no reason for not expanding the ice surface. If the owners are so worried about cash flow, add an extra row or two to the top. That's the only place that hockey fans can sit now anyways. The lower seats are too expensive."

Mike of Tallahassee, Fla., raised the red flag: "Do you really think the NHL would go for removal of high-priced seats in favor of an Olympic-sized rink? There's no way they even consider it, not when it takes money out of ownership's pockets. Isn't that what this is all about? Creating a structure so no matter how badly an NHL owner runs his team, he's still going to make gobs of money?"

Blue line, red line, bottom line, it's all about the Benjamins, Abes, and Georges flowing into the owners' trousers. Pro leagues exist for that purpose. But it should be obvious to even the most addled NHL poobah that few humans will pay through the proboscis for mediocre hockey, especially in places like Phoenix and Nashville. If the mediocre hockey is served up by mediocre replacement players, it's disaster time, boys and girls. The NHL really has to get it right.